Flower Power

By James Bovard: James Bovard writes frequently about agriculture.

Published: February 6, 1987

WASHINGTON—
Uncle Sam may soon sabotage St. Valentine's Day. The International Trade Commission is considering invoking sweeping penalties and duties on imported flowers, which could possibly double the cost of flowers sold on the streets of American cities. This is a nice example of the inane application of our trade regulations and of the idiotic system that could subjugate the interests of millions of consumers to the benefit of a few hundred farmers.

The Commerce Department ruled last fall that eight foreign countries -Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, Canada and Kenya -are dumping fresh-cut flowers on the American market at unfairly low prices. The evidence of ''illegal subsidies'' was fairly flimsy, such as rebates on taxes imposed on flower growers in Chile or a subsidy of 0.5 percent in Canada. In recent years, foreign flowers have poured into the United States, and retail flower prices have tumbled as vendors set up their baskets on the street to sell carnations and roses for a third of what fancy flower shops charge. The result has been a vast increase in flower sales, more jobs and millions of women getting flowers who might not have otherwise.

The International Trade Commission concluded that flower imports were hurting the roughly 500 American flower growers in the United States. The main evidence of harm seems to have been that flower prices would have been higher if the imports had not been allowed, and thus profits would have been higher. Thus, the industry has suffered ''material harm'' and is entitled to some compensation, the I.T.C. ruled.

Using this kind of lame reasoning, why not ban all imports? Any business that would have been richer if foreign competition were kept out would be entitled to compensation.

Despite the wailing from American flower growers, both total hours worked in the domestic flower industry and net sales of domestically grown flowers have increased in recent years. Yet, because profits would have been even higher had the imports been excluded, the flower growers want to be rescued.

Most people in the industry would readily concede that the Dutch grow prettier flowers than American growers do. A recent industry study found that American growers frequently require flower merchants to display a portion of slow moving colors in order to also offer for sale the quick-selling colors.

Moreover, domestic flower growers reportedly threatened to cut off supplies to flower wholesalers just before St. Valentine's Day if they testified in Washington against imposing penalties on foreign flower imports.

Doesn't the Government have anything better to do than to decide how to count flower stems - one of the hot items of contention in this trade case? Or to quibble over which flowers can properly be substituted for other flowers?

Foreign carnation imports have soared and now account for 70 percent of the domestic market. But many, perhaps most, of the people buying carnations on the street for a dollar or two per bunch would not buy American-made carnations for $5 a bunch even if it was the only choice.

Almost all trade cases revolve around the idea that foreigners are trying to impoverish themselves and enrich us by selling to us at a loss -and that the Federal Government should forcibly intervene to stop them. This is nonsense, but it provides very good livings for lawyers and lobbyists.

We cannot afford to risk the amity between the sexes in order to enrich a few hundred pedal pushers. America can survive Colombian carnations and Dutch pompoms. If foreigners want to make us happy, we shouldn't block our ports to stop them.